or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by macaholic_1948

I think I'm glad I'm old and will die in the not too distant future Ads on every surface you look at? The thought is enough to make one throw up.
I'll take reports that Google's innovation etc. make them the top brand (anywhere) more seriously when Google actually produces useful products that people buy instead of developing new ways to pry into our lives in new and intrusive ways and using smoke and mirrors to debut future products as if they already exist.
Without patent protection, the little guy's intellectual property and rights would not be protected from anyone. They would be eaten alive by everyone.As it is, the scofflaws of the world, such as Samsung (judging by their actions as described in a Vanity Fair article linked in another thread and their action vis a vis Dyson) don't give a damn about your rights.There is one way and only one way to stop them—prevent sales of consumer products until they can show they will...
Do you even understand what "fair use" is? If so, please explain how it applied.
Samsung didn't think them a joke judging by how important their own documents stated their importance (for copying and inclusion in Samsung products).But, hey, it's just an opinion.
All fine and dandy but Samsung directly infringed on Apple's intellectual property and that is what the case is about, at least with respect to slide to lock and data detectors. That was the primary point of my post.It would be interesting to see Samsung try to blame Google and claim damages. Despite the enormous chutzpah in doing so, I bet it would be difficult to do it successfully. It isn't as if the technology infringed upon was an unknown, fringe component no one ever...
What you just stated is not what I responded to or even questioned. I wouldn't even presume to question it, had that been what you posted. Instead, let me repeat what I responded to and highlight the relevant portion that I questioned.Besides being more than an idea, this trial is neither about a patented phone nor an idea. It is about 5 specific patents covering certain specific elements (among many) that make up that phone. To reduce it to the idea of phone as a whole as...
Two points in an attempt to take it back to the original post (probably fruitless). First, the material presented above, showing the dramatic shift in Google's Android development, about the time of Apple's iPhone release, would appear to strongly contradict Hiroshi Locheimer's testimony last week. Specifically where his statements were paraphrased: "He noted that the team of engineers working on the project made a concerted effort to make Android a discrete operating...
If the iPhone is an idea, please explain to me how I can hold it, feel it, see it, hear it and even taste it were I so inclined.Isn't it fair to say that what was patented was a specifically implemented physical manifestation of the ideas, not the idea itself?
No. It's not obvious. It depends on the laws of the countries where their stock is traded. It depends on what they put in the filings with the various stock exchanges.In case you haven't noticed, their ability to tell the truth and operate ethically is questionable at best. Their chief executive has a criminal record.
New Posts  All Forums: